Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (54 of 1994), Ss. 17(4), 27, 28, 30 — Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, R. 18A(3)(iv) — Code of Criminal Procedure (2 of 1974), Ss. 4(2), 5, 154, 173(2), 190(1) — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), Ss. 4(2), 5, 173, 175, 210 — Police power of investigation and registration of FIR — Exclusivity of investigation by Appropriate Authority (AA) — Effect of classifying offences as cognizable and non-bailable under Section 27. Held: The classification of offences under Section 27 of the PCPNDT Act as "cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable" does not empower the police to register an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or conduct an independent statutory investigation into offences punishable under the Act. The PCPNDT Act is a self-contained special code that confers exclusive powers of inquiry, investigation, search, and seizure upon the notified Appropriate Authority (AA) and its Authorized Officers under Sections 17(4), 17A, and 30. Rule 18A(3)(iv), possessing statutory force, mandates that police involvement must be avoided "as far as possible" since cases under the Act are designed to proceed strictly as complaint cases. The word "cognizable" cannot be read in isolation to override the specialized scheme of the Act; its object is merely to emphasize gravity and prevent routine bail at the police station level. Police participation is strictly supplemental, aiding the AA only upon its specific request. (Paras 6.2, 9.1, 9.2, 9.6, 10.1, 10.2, 10.4, 11 [Ans. 1, 2]; Paras 2, 3, 4, 13.1, 13.5 of concurring judgment)

 2026 INSC 901

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(From: Allahabad High Court)

Coram: SANJAY KAROL and NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 2938 of 2025, D/- 20-08-2026.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. — Appellants

versus

Dr. Brij Pal Singh & Anr. — Respondents

HEADNOTE

(A) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (54 of 1994), Ss. 17(4), 27, 28, 30 — Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, R. 18A(3)(iv) — Code of Criminal Procedure (2 of 1974), Ss. 4(2), 5, 154, 173(2), 190(1) — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), Ss. 4(2), 5, 173, 175, 210 — Police power of investigation and registration of FIR — Exclusivity of investigation by Appropriate Authority (AA) — Effect of classifying offences as cognizable and non-bailable under Section 27.

Held: The classification of offences under Section 27 of the PCPNDT Act as "cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable" does not empower the police to register an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or conduct an independent statutory investigation into offences punishable under the Act. The PCPNDT Act is a self-contained special code that confers exclusive powers of inquiry, investigation, search, and seizure upon the notified Appropriate Authority (AA) and its Authorized Officers under Sections 17(4), 17A, and 30. Rule 18A(3)(iv), possessing statutory force, mandates that police involvement must be avoided "as far as possible" since cases under the Act are designed to proceed strictly as complaint cases. The word "cognizable" cannot be read in isolation to override the specialized scheme of the Act; its object is merely to emphasize gravity and prevent routine bail at the police station level. Police participation is strictly supplemental, aiding the AA only upon its specific request. (Paras 6.2, 9.1, 9.2, 9.6, 10.1, 10.2, 10.4, 11 [Ans. 1, 2]; Paras 2, 3, 4, 13.1, 13.5 of concurring judgment)

(2009) 7 SCC 526 and (2021) 12 SCC 674 — Relied on.

(2011) 7 SCC 639 and (2011) 11 SCC 702 — Followed.

(2014) 4 SCC 1 — Distinguished and Explained.

(B) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (54 of 1994), S. 28 — Code of Criminal Procedure (2 of 1974), S. 2(d), S. 2(r), S. 190(1)(a) — Cognizance of offences — Bar against taking cognizance on Police Report / Charge-sheet.

Held: Section 28 of the Act imposes an absolute, mandatory, and prohibitory jurisdictional embargo on courts taking cognizance of an offence under the Act except on a formal complaint in writing filed by the Appropriate Authority, an authorized officer, or a person/social organization giving 15 days' notice. A police charge-sheet/report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. does not constitute a "complaint" under Section 28. Consequently, a competent Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence under the PCPNDT Act on the basis of a police charge-sheet. (Paras 6.4, 10.3, 11 [Ans. 3])

(C) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (54 of 1994), Ss. 27, 28 — Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (45 of 2023) — Offences arising from same connected transaction — Dual-track investigation and inter-agency coordination — Respective jurisdictional boundaries of Police and Appropriate Authority.

Held (per Kotiswar Singh, J., concurring): Where a transaction discloses both an offence under the PCPNDT Act (e.g., sex selection/determination) and an independent cognizable offence under the general penal law (IPC/BNS, e.g., foeticide, medical homicide, cheating):

1. The occurrence forms two separate procedural tracks: the PCPNDT component remains strictly within the exclusive investigative remit of the Appropriate Authority, while the distinct general penal offence is investigated by the police under the Cr.P.C./BNSS.
   
   
2. If an FIR or police information discloses only a PCPNDT violation, the police must make a general diary entry and promptly transmit the papers to the AA without conducting an investigation.
   
   
3. If an FIR discloses mixed offences, the police shall restrict their investigation solely to the IPC/BNS offences and promptly transmit the PCPNDT component to the AA.
   
   
4. The police cannot use the general penal offence as a gateway to take over the PCPNDT investigation; nor can the PCPNDT Act serve as a shield against the investigation of genuine penal offences. Both agencies must coordinate reciprocally by sharing material/technical findings without encroaching on each other's jurisdiction. (Paras 10.2, 10.7; Paras 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13.1–13.7 of concurring judgment)
   
   

(2014) 9 SCC 772 — Applied.

FACTS

• Upon receiving secret information regarding illegal foetal sex determination, the District Magistrate (Bulandshahar), acting as the Appropriate Authority under the Act, deputed the Tehsildar as Authorized Officer to conduct a decoy operation at a hospital.
  
  
• Following the decoy raid, FIR No. 628 of 2017 was registered by the police. Subsequent to police investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the Respondent (doctor) under Sections 315/511 IPC and Sections 4, 5(2), 6(a), 23, and 25 of the PCPNDT Act.
  
  
• The Respondent approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet. While allowing the quashing petition, the Single Judge noted sharp divergence among various High Courts across the country regarding the role of police and the validity of cognizance taken on a police report under the Act, and granted a certificate of appeal under Article 134-A read with Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution on three substantial questions of law. (Paras 1, 2, 3)
  
  

ANALYSIS OF FACTS & LAW

• Special Statute vs. General Procedural Law: Sections 4(2) and 5 of Cr.P.C. (and BNSS) preserve special statutory mechanisms. The PCPNDT Act provides an elaborate machinery (AA, Advisory Committees, search/seizure powers under Section 30) requiring specialized medical and technical expertise. This regulatory framework completely displaces ordinary police investigation for offences punishable under the Act. (Paras 9.1, 9.2, 10.1)
  
  
• Harmonious Interpretation of Sections 27 and 28: Section 27 (cognizable/non-bailable) and Section 28 (cognizance only on AA complaint) must be harmonized. Reading Section 27 as giving police unfettered power to investigate would lead to futility, because under Section 28 the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a police charge-sheet. Applying the principle of harmonious construction and giving primacy to the leading specialized provision, Section 28 controls the mode of prosecution. (Paras 10.2, 10.3, 10.6)
  
  
• Statutory Force of Rule 18A(3)(iv): The rules framed under the Act and laid before Parliament carry statutory force. The phrase "as far as possible" in Rule 18A(3)(iv) provides limited discretion to the AA to requisition police assistance for safety, logistics, or scenes preservation, but does not empower the police to act as the primary investigating authority. (Paras 10.4, 11 [Ans. 2])
  
  

CONCLUSION

• Answer to Reference:
  
  
  1. Registration of an FIR by the police for offences exclusively under the PCPNDT Act is impermissible merely because the offences are declared cognizable and non-bailable.
     
     
  2. Police investigation into PCPNDT offences is impermissible; the Appropriate Authority is exclusively vested with the duty to investigate complaints under the Act. Police role is confined to providing supplemental assistance when requested by the AA.
     
     
  3. A competent Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under the PCPNDT Act on the basis of a police report/charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
     
     
• Dual Track Preservation: Police power to investigate independent offences disclosed under the IPC/BNS or general penal laws remains untouched, subject to inter-agency coordination guidelines.
  
  
• Matter remanded to the High Court for final decision in accordance with the principles laid down. Appeal disposed of. (Paras 11, 12, 13; Paras 13, 14 of concurring judgment)